Oh but you do Bernard. Your talk about Nikon being the greatest says so.

What have I written about Nikon that isnít factual?

Iíll be more than happy to stand corrected... because I really donít care.

There are many things I care about, donít get me wrong. I care a lot about the sharpness of my images, never post an image that is not tack sharp at 100% on screen even if nobody would notice at typical web sizes, I care about sorting out my trash, I care about the way my daughter treats people, I care about world politics, the selfish decisions of Trump and how they must inspire millions of kids to act stupidely themselves,... the list is pretty much endless... but whether Nikon manages to top Sony with their first mirrorless body is something I find intriguing, but I donít care who wins even if I think Nikon probably will.

I donít know how old you are nor what kind of experiences you have been through in life, but there comes a time when you just deal with who you are. You just say things the way you feel them. I have mostly reached this stage. If I cared I would just say it.

Iíll be more than happy to stand corrected... because I really donít care.

There are many things I care about, donít get me wrong. I care a lot about the sharpness of my images, never post an image that is not tack sharp at 100% on screen even if nobody would notice at typical web sizes, I care about sorting out my trash, I care about the way my daughter treats people, I care about world politics, the selfish decisions of Trump and how they must inspire millions of kids to act stupidely themselves,... the list is pretty much endless... but whether Nikon manages to top Sony with their first mirrorless body is something I find intriguing, but I donít care who wins even if I think Nikon probably will.

I donít know how old you are nor what kind of experiences you have been through in life, but there comes a time when you just deal with who you are. You just say things the way you feel them. I have mostly reached this stage. If I cared I would just say it.

Iíll be more than happy to stand corrected... because I really donít care.

There are many things I care about, donít get me wrong. I care a lot about the sharpness of my images, never post an image that is not tack sharp at 100% on screen even if nobody would notice at typical web sizes, I care about sorting out my trash, I care about the way my daughter treats people, I care about world politics, the selfish decisions of Trump and how they must inspire millions of kids to act stupidely themselves,... the list is pretty much endless... but whether Nikon manages to top Sony with their first mirrorless body is something I find intriguing, but I donít care who wins even if I think Nikon probably will.

I donít know how old you are nor what kind of experiences you have been through in life, but there comes a time when you just deal with who you are. You just say things the way you feel them. I have mostly reached this stage. If I cared I would just say it.

Cheers,Bernard

Bernard, that last paragraph: perfectly put, and where, if we are lucky, we eventually reach.

But beware: with it comes the award of curmudgeon and the accompanying smile that says yep, that's okay too!

Too bad you boys had to wait until you are on in age to deal with just who you are. Did you wear a masquerade when younger?

I'm on in age as well and it hasn't changed my approach to life and my outlook of myself. I never cared what other people thought of me and still do not...everyone is entitled to their opinion...even the ones that are wrong.

This is apparently indeed the case with Sonyís implementation, but nothing would prevent a different implementation where the AF pixels are read at a higher speed than the imaging ones (a multiple obviously).

In fact I am wondering whether the Sony implementation is really the one you are describing for the PDAD based focusing phase. It may be the case if a final contrast based AF is needed. But this also is technological in nature.

In other words, I believe that a lot can still be invented here.

Cheers,Bernard

Hi Benard,

What you said it could be very true... my speculation why Sony maybe does it this way, and this goes very very far away of what I could know about CMOS sensor technology and AF technology, so, take it with a very big grain of salt:

- For things like Eye AF or Face detection my speculation is that they are using information from more than the PDAF pixels. PDAF pixels give information about where to move the lens, rest of pixels information about what the camera is seeing.

- Not sure if the Sony tracking algorithms use this. But since they can read the whole image (or a big number of pixels), for what you can understand from Sony presentations, it will be interesting for Sony engineers to use all the info improve their algorithms.

I suspect that the ability or read quick an image in Sony sensor does not come from the need of better AF reading (it is a benefit to it...), I think their major objective was to reduce EVF lag and eliminate blackout (one of the major criticism for action photography that they had before the A9). Also, for video and action photography, this minimizes the effect of rolling shutter (curiously enough... Sony with the A9 did a Canon like move... not allowing to have Picture Profiles for video on it).

Now other thing, again, big grain of salt here, reading only the PDAF pixels will probably require specific control lines for those pixels in sensor design, this can complicate the design of the metal connections of the sensor chip. Although... after writing this, and thinking of the stacked sensor design of the A9 and A7 III chip, since the image is very quickly copied to a DRAM chip, access to the PDAF pixels only will be just addressing those memory address that it should be very quick...

As I said in this thread or in other one talking about mirrorless... I have a very big nerdy side

I have to admit, I have never seen fanboy syndrome so well illustrated anywhere else.

Congratulations, LuLa and Nikon or, in the interests of fair play: Nikon and LuLa.

I have just realized, with the amount of amazement you can guess, that... we have never defined clearly what a fanboy is...

So... I'll start: to me a fanboy is an individual whose love for a brand makes forget all notion of objectivity. The fanboy isn't as much defined by the way he speaks about his brand of choice, as it is by the derogative way he speaks about other equipments, over emphasizing their issues and minimizing their qualities. A major manifestation of this being trolling in un-releted forum posts. For instance, bringing in insistently Sony topics in a Nikon thread,...

I have just realized, with the amount of amazement you can guess, that... we have never defined clearly what a fanboy is...

So... I'll start: to me a fanboy is an individual whose love for a brand makes forget all notion of objectivity. The fanboy isn't as much defined by the way he speaks about his brand of choice, as it is by the derogative way he speaks about other equipments, over emphasizing their issues and minimizing their qualities. A major manifestation of this being trolling in un-releted forum posts. For instance, bringing in insistently Sony topics in a Nikon thread,...

I have just realized, with the amount of amazement you can guess, that... we have never defined clearly what a fanboy is...

So... I'll start: to me a fanboy is an individual whose love for a brand makes forget all notion of objectivity. The fanboy isn't as much defined by the way he speaks about his brand of choice, as it is by the derogative way he speaks about other equipments, over emphasizing their issues and minimizing their qualities. A major manifestation of this being trolling in un-releted forum posts. For instance, bringing in insistently Sony topics in a Nikon thread,...

I have just realized, with the amount of amazement you can guess, that... we have never defined clearly what a fanboy is...

So... I'll start: to me a fanboy is an individual whose love for a brand makes forget all notion of objectivity. The fanboy isn't as much defined by the way he speaks about his brand of choice, as it is by the derogative way he speaks about other equipments, over emphasizing their issues and minimizing their qualities. A major manifestation of this being trolling in un-releted forum posts. For instance, bringing in insistently Sony topics in a Nikon thread,...

Can we agree on this totally objective definition?

Cheers,Bernard

Not sure IMO. For me the necessary and sufficient condition for being a fanboy is more general than objectiveness related, being the lack of objectiveness just a symptom of fanboyism, not the definition itself.

A fanboy is a user who will always want/desire/prefer/need (I still don't have the right word clear here) his favourite, and usually owned, camera brand to prevail over the rest, no matter if that means being objective or illusional, no matter if that objectively (economically, in terms of performance,...) benefits him or not. It's about having some kind of irrational empathic feeling for the corporation which manufactures his stuff.

In this way a fanboy is very close to a massive sport supporter (football, basketball,... team sports in general), some particular car brand lover (I declare myself an Alfa Romeo nearly fanboy for instance), or even those people with deep patriotic roots, which is probably one of the least rational forms of fanboyism since most patriots were just born in their home country by coincidence; only voluntarily chosen immigrant patriots make really sense.

A thing I’ve noticed with fanboys is that they get very upset if asked to think for themselves. I suspect the basic deal is that they don’t want to have to take responsibility for their own life and have handed it over to an authority figure in exchange for loyalty. So long as they remain loyal the authority figure will run their life for them. Hence the barmy overcompensating brand loyalty. Thus the most terrifying thing for the fanboy is having to stand alone, start over and ... change brands.

Not sure IMO. For me the necessary and sufficient condition for being a fanboy is more general than objectiveness related, being the lack of objectiveness just a symptom of fanboyism, not the definition itself.

A fanboy is a user who will always want/desire/prefer/need (I still don't have the right word clear here) his favourite, and usually owned, camera brand to prevail over the rest, no matter if that means being objective or illusional, no matter if that objectively (economically, in terms of performance,...) benefits him or not. It's about having some kind of irrational empathic feeling for the corporation which manufactures his stuff.

In this way a fanboy is very close to a massive sport supporter (football, basketball,... team sports in general), some particular car brand lover (I declare myself an Alfa Romeo nearly fanboy for instance), or even those people with deep patriotic roots, which is probably one of the least rational forms of fanboyism since most patriots were just born in their home country by coincidence; only voluntarily chosen immigrant patriots make really sense.

Is fanboyism an intrinsic preliminary condition irrelevant of (potentially still unconfirmed) reality?

For instance, am I/will I still be a Nikon fanboy if the Z6 ends up having the best (mirrorless) AF on the market? Do I become a skilled forecaster? Or is the fact that I mention the possibility - based on credible rumors and past track record - of a bright future for Nikon an unmistakable proof that I am a fanboy?

Would I be more of a fanboy if I trashed talked Sony (which I have never ever done - I love Sony and many of their products including their a7/a9 cameras even if I donít find them perfect)?

In other words, I am fully comfortable with being called a Nikon fan, but I would rather leave the boy part to those whose forecasts have been clouded by their own lack of objectivity (not talking about you).